-
N – Libel law: the real fight lies ahead23 April 2010Libel law: the real fight lies ahead Reformers need to keep up the pressure to reform English libel laws, says an editorial in Nature (22 April 2010, doi:10.1038/4641104a). Simon Singh’s recent libel result is a victory for science, and the court’s judgment itself may offer wider protection to scientists and writers (see http://go.nature.com/EQFfg3). But the […]
-
B – Plagiarism retracts review23 April 2010Plagiarism retracts review. The Scientist.com. 1 April 2010posted by Bob Grant A review paper was retracted from Nature Reviews Genetics because the author modified a paragraph from a manuscript she was peer reviewing for the journal Plant Science and inserted into her own. The author told that the mistake was not intentional and partly caused […]
-
B – Periodicals Price Survey 201023 April 2010Henderson K.S. and Bosch S. Seeking the new normal: periodicals price survey 2010. Library Journal. April 15, 2010 By the end of 2009 the library marketplace was in a weakened situation with prospects of a long recovery. Libraries may not see a “return to normal” once the economy improves. Evidence suggests instead a search for […]
-
N- Authors by the gross20 April 2010After Times Higher Education reported a physics paper with 144 authors (this phenomenon will be familiar to EASE members), readers of THS reported even more gross examples (15 April, p29). “The HOPE study” published in the February 1996 issue of the Canadian Journal of Cardiology had a total of 718 authors. A seven-page article in […]
-
B – Journal myths30 March 2010Editorial. Exploding the myths surrounding how and why we select our research papers. Nature 2010;463:850.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7283/full/463850a.html Nature provides some insights into its paper selection process, and debunks three myths about the process: (1) editors seek to boost the impact factor by selecting papers likely to have a high citation rate; (2) one negative referee will determine […]
-
B – ICMJE requirements on competing interests: do they solve the problems?29 March 2010Hutchinson L, DeVita VT. Conflict of interest disclosures. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 7:1http://www.nature.com/nrclinonc/journal/v7/n1/full/nrclinonc.2009.215.html While the ICMJE uniform requirements for disclosure of competing interests are welcome, all journals still rely on authors to disclose all information that may be perceived as relevant. If an individual does not wish to disclose information, there is no universal form […]
-
B – Challenging conventions on sample size29 March 2010Bacchetti P. Current sample size conventions: Flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Medicine 2010;8:17.http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/8/17/abstract The widespread belief that medical research studies need a statistical power of at least 80% to be scientifically sound is a seriously flawed requirement. Standard calculations are unreliable, and move focus away from studies’ more important results: estimates and confidence intervals. Current […]
-
B – Retractions: COPE guidance19 March 2010Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, et al. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics. Journal of Critical Care 2009;24:620–622. Also available at http://publicationethics.org/guidelines Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if the findings are unreliable (due to misconduct or honest error), inappropriately duplicated, plagiarised, or based from unethical research. In cases of inconclusive […]
-
B- Ghost(writer)busters10 March 2010Lacasse JR, Leo J. Ghostwriting at elite academic medical centers in the United States. PLoS Med 2010 Feb 2;7(2):e1000230 Ghostwriting can no more be defined as the “dirty little secret” of the medical literature. Over the past several years medical writers, journals and editors’ associations (i.e. ICMJE and WAME) have highlighted the problem, developing a […]
-
B – Researchers’ perception of citations10 March 2010Aksnes DW, Rip A. Researchers’ perception of citations. Research Policy 2009;38(6):895-905(doi:101016/j.respol.2009.02.001) While the use of publication and citation indicators increases, their application is controversial. Researchers perceive citations as part of the reward system of science but on the other hand they criticize them for not reflecting actual scientific contribution. Viewpoints present in the Norwegian scientific […]
-
B – Peering into review9 March 2010Editorial. Peering into review. Nature Medicine 2010; 16:239(doi:10.1038/nm0310-239) The peer review process is a cornerstone of the scientific publication process. Fourteen stem cell editors recently signed an open letter expressing concerns over the confidential peer review process and suggesting the publication of reviewers’ comments. A common fear among authors is that rival scientists could make […]
-
B – Bias in the research literature8 March 2010Young SN. Bias in the research literature and conflict of interest: an issue for publishers, editors, reviewers and authors, and it is not just about the money. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience 2009;34(6):412-417.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783432 Much has been written about drug company payments to researchers, but conflicts of interest (COIs) are also an issue for publishers, editors, […]
